No programme or project should have a separate change management element. Juliet Armstrong states her case for a holistic approach to change management
Many programmes and projects have a separate workstream dedicated to change management. By change management in this context, I mean how an organisation adapts and changes to meet the objectives of the programme or project. My view is that separating out the ’change’ element so starkly in the structure often leads to undesirable consequences. Rather than assuring the successful introduction of change and the delivery of benefits, the programme or project may actually take its eye off the ball. Why do I believe this?
"Understanding the organisational culture is key to determining what will work."
Change management workstreams often focus too heavily on training and communications
Whilst these activities are critical to equip people with the required skills, knowledge and general information about the change, they only form part of the picture. The change management challenge must ensure that the change is aligned with real business demand, that there is genuine stakeholder engagement and buy-in, and that there is a thorough impact assessment of business processes, commercial dependencies and relationships.
Understanding the organisational culture and likely resistance to change is also key in determining what, practically, will work to make things happen. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there are the sensitive implications for people’s actual roles and responsibilities; these need to be understood, appreciated and, ultimately, addressed.
Workstreams dedicated to managing change are often not sufficiently integrated in the content aspects of a programme or project
It is often in content-based discussions about current business or technical issues, future requirements, delivery options and desired benefits that the real nature of the change challenge becomes apparent. Conversations with end-users, management and wider stakeholders can yield goldmines of information about the real concerns and worries that people have. With deepening relationships as the programme or project progresses, honest and open dialogue should continue to identify where the real change management priorities lie. Members of change workstreams often simply miss out on participating first-hand in these rich debates and discussions, and therefore are less able to use their skills and resources fully to respond.
Overall, managing change is a more holistic concept. Like managing innovation or quality, successful change management cannot be a ‘bolt on’ to strategy definition or delivery activities
While some separate and dedicated activities will inevitably be required, such as training design and delivery, I believe change management needs to be considered in a more holistic way. As a start, every person involved in a programme or project should be genuinely curious yet empathetic about how individuals – and the organisation in general – will or could be impacted; this could be a recruitment criterion for the team.
Programme/project executives and managers should lead from the top
on this. I would argue that the programme/project manager and change manager are really one and the same. Too often, the focus of the role is on the somewhat mechanical development and delivery of a strategy or other solution.